Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you see my problem. The entire organism evolves with its body parts in unison. One cell organisms do not have body parts. They are ONE cell. So they would continue to reproduce as ONE cell. Yes, there could be a situation where a separation did not take place completely but that organism would not continue to produce more copies of itself not fully devided. And certainly not to the point of developing feet and eyes and other body parts that never existed before. And that is about as simple as I can explain the problem.

Have you looked for the available literature and read any of it? What is your background in basic biology? Try some internet searches. Get back to us.

Cells don't decide to grow feet.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Because it's adaptive.

Experimental evolution of multicellularity | PNAS

Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes.​

It is POORLY understood and may have taken place rapidly but evolution is a very slow process that takes millions of years. Sounds like science is not sure.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well I know evolution depends very much on the fossil record. And the fossil record definitely shows that there was a time when there were rocks and a later time when there were living things. Since science is not concerned with proof then why not postulate that life came from rocks? Can it be proven true or false?

Evolution explains what we see in the fossil record. Predictions based on the theory have been successful in locating evidence in the fossil record.

Despite your claim, there is no evidence that rocks spontaneously evolve into cells.

I am getting a very good picture of your basic understanding of biology and geology here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is POORLY understood and may have taken place rapidly but evolution is a very slow process that takes millions of years. Sounds like science is not sure.

Gap theology.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I'll let @Dan From Smithville answer this, but let me just say that there was an intermediate stage whereas individual cells "glued" themselves together whereas they could not be so easy to be eaten. A sponge sorta is similar to that even though today's sponges are much more complex.

If I "glue" a bunch of worms together they will still reproduce as individual worms. A multi cell organism is not a bunch of cells glued together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@lostwanderingsoul has had his question answered, yet he keeps asking it, which indicates that he simply ignored the answer he was given.

Like I said, they're not asking in good faith.

The main premise here seems to me to be that "since they don't understand, it can't be understood. Therefore the conclusions of science are false and creationism wins".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I "glue" a bunch of worms together they will still reproduce as individual worms. A multi cell organism is not a bunch of cells glued together.

Seriously guy?

What is a multi-cellular organism then? What is keeping those cells in a multi-celled organism together? I wonder what is holding my cells together?

On those worms. Have tried duct tape?

 

[Jose Fly]

It is POORLY understood and may have taken place rapidly but evolution is a very slow process that takes millions of years. Sounds like science is not sure.

This is what I mean...you obviously didn't bother to read the full paper and are now just offering excuses to justify waving it away, all of which supports what I said earlier....you haven't been asking your questions in good faith (i.e. out of genuine interest), and instead were just trying to play "stump the evolutionist".

The reality is, unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms is a directly observed fact. It occurred because it was adaptive.

Your questions have been answered.

 

[metis]

If I "glue" a bunch of worms together they will still reproduce as individual worms. A multi cell organism is not a bunch of cells glued together.

In the modern day, yes, but I wasn't talking about the modern day. Life forms evolve, and they will continue to evolve.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seriously guy?

What is a multi-cellular organism then? What is keeping those cells in a multi-celled organism together? I wonder what is holding my cells together?

On those worms. Have tried duct tape?

Again....they're not even trying anymore.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what did it evo;ve from in the world of science?

Evolution operates on living things. It is not a theory about the origin of life.

Life has to exist before it evolves.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Evolution explains what we see in the fossil record. Predictions based on the theory have been successful in locating evidence in the fossil record.

Despite your claim, there is no evidence that rocks spontaneously evolve into cells.

I am getting a very good picture of your basic understanding of biology and geology here.

If you will answer one more thing I will stop asking questions. There is no evidence rocks evolved into cells. So what is your best answer as to what did evolve into cells? My last question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again....they're not even trying anymore.

I know.

People want magic. They don't want to learn anything. They don't want to work or challenge themselves. They want to automatically play guitar like Jeff Beck without benefit of the years of work it took him to get to his level.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Evolution operates on living things. It is not a theory about the origin of life.

Life has to exist before it evolves.

You may be on to something there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you will answer one more thing I will stop asking questions. There is no evidence rocks evolved into cells. So what is your best answer as to what did evolve into cells? My last question.

No one has a definitive answer to what came before the first fully living cells. Scientists are looking. Several hypotheses have been proposed.

Just because it has not been determined does not mean it did not happen or that anyone's particular belief system is automatically instated as the winning answer.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know.

People want magic. They don't want to learn anything. They don't want to work or challenge themselves. They want to automatically play guitar like Jeff Beck without benefit of the years of work it took him to get to his level.

Actually I don't think it's like that. Your scenario assumes they really want to learn, but just don't want to do the required work. I see it as they aren't at all interested in learning. Instead, they're trying to score points in a debate by focusing their questions on issues they think science hasn't solved yet (evolution of multicellularity, origin of life). They're hoping that they'll be able to ask "How did X happen", we'll have to answer "We don't know", and then they'll get to declare victory.

IOW, it's a game of "stump the evolutionists". That's why when their questions are answered, they just wave the answers away and move on to another question (as just happened with multicellularity).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You may be on to something there.

It is basic to understanding what is observed in the natural world. Biological evolution is a process that operates with existing life. The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. That the origin of life is still a question has no impact on the validity of the theory of evolution.

If it is determined that life suddenly poofed into existence by some supernatural means (whatever that means), it would still evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually I don't think it's like that. Your scenario assumes they really want to learn, but just don't want to do the required work. I see it as they aren't at all interested in learning. Instead, they're trying to score points in a debate by focusing their questions on issues they think science hasn't solved yet (evolution of multicellularity, origin of life). They're hoping that they'll be able to ask "How did X happen", we'll have to answer "We don't know", and then they'll get to declare victory.

IOW, it's a game of "stump the evolutionists". That's why when their questions are answered, they just wave the answers away and move on to another question (as just happened with multicellularity).

I am not sure my way implies a desire to learn so much as a desire to be spoon fed comfort food of the mind. Perhaps my analogy explains more about how they demand to know decades of research in a single sentence without any effort on their part. Since it cannot be done, they can dismiss it all in personal comfort that they have complied with doctrine and dogma.

So, I do agree with you on the strategy they employ to not learn. I love the pigeon chess analogy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sheesh dude, several people have been trying to get you to understand a very basic point.....that's not how evolution works.

If you truly want to understand evolutionary biology, take a college course, read a layperson friendly book, or go to a good scientific website like this: Welcome to Evolution 101! (berkeley.edu)

Jeff Beck applies better to this pigeon chess strategy of conflating what we have solid evidence for and what is open so that all can be dismissed.

If we cannot magically make them Jeff Beck, then anything that can be demonstrated can be waved away too.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am not sure my way implies a desire to learn so much as a desire to be spoon fed comfort food of the mind. Perhaps my analogy explains more about how they demand to know decades of research in a single sentence without any effort on their part. Since it cannot be done, they can dismiss it all in personal comfort that they have complied with doctrine and dogma.

I guess I'm just jaded from all the times I've made the effort to spoon-feed a creationist info, only to see them wave it away and show up later asking the same questions all over again.

So, I do agree with you on the strategy they employ to not learn. I love the pigeon chess analogy.

Ah yes, one of the best analogies ever!